User talk:Nikkimaria

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedians celebrate International Women's Day, Women's History Month

• Traffic report: War and awards

• Featured content: Ukraine burns

• WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Annie Hall (round 3)

I give up. Daft. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ike Altgens FAC

A great deal of work has been put in to Ike Altgens since I first listed it, including a new free image. It should be about as "done" as a living article for a dead man (xD) can get. Please revisit at your convenience, with my thanks. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

ok thx 4 reminding me. Ninjadude8 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks and Google Books links

While I would agree with you that the format of Reflinks could be better -- as it is not exactly the the most accurate of algorithms (it seems to be based on a embedded page information). However I think that its output is better than that a raw HTML link as shown in the example we are discussing, and it has some clear advantages over the raw url link (primarily presentation (text is better than a raw url, and secondly the protection it gives against link rot (both by providing text and an access date).

That is not to say it can not be improved by hand crafting the output, but that is a separate issue and on balance I think that the page is better for the alteration than it was before Reflinks was run.

OK so I have explained the benefits, but you say that the "output is inaccurate at best", but you will have to explain to me what it is that you think is inaccurate as I don't see which inaccuracies you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Access dates are unhelpful for GBooks links - they are not archived, so access date provides no protection against link rot
2. The title is incorrect - it is incomplete and includes non-title information in the title field
3. The authors are listed in the "title" field
4. The date is entirely incorrect - the book was originally published 1957 and that edition in 2010
5. The publisher is incorrect
6. The output excludes ISBN, which would be far more helpful
7. The output excludes page number, which is needed for verifiability
8. The presentation is incorrect, both in that it uses cite web for what is clearly a book source, and in that it does not match the citation style used for the rest of the article. This is a problem for both CITEVAR and common sense.

Having a raw HTML link would flag someone to cite this properly, while the Reflinks version looks somewhat complete but actually is quite the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what is produced:

• "The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined: An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems ... - William F. Friedman, Elizabeth S. Friedman - Google Books". Books.google.co.uk. 14 April 2011.

What you are doing is looking at it from the point of view of an editor and worrying about what is or is not in specific fields within a template, but from the reader the view is somewhat different.

• Access dates fulfil two functions one is for the reader and when a page was read, the second case is that it gives an editor an idea of how long a problem has existed. In this case while I agree with you that it is of no use to a reader it is of marginal use to an editor, and it is not inaccurate. whoops I see not accessdate. The date field seems to be accurate.
• The title is not incorrect it is just shortened
• The authors are present
• The date seems to me to be accurate.
  • The three pieces of information will allow a reader to find the source even if the link goes dead.
• The field is not filled in with the true publisher's information, but as the whole display is not being presented in a standard way so the reader is not likely to assume that the publisher is called "Books.google.co.uk" so I do not see that as a problem as the reader is informed that the link is to Google books.
• The page numbers are missing but they are missing from a raw html string as well
• The output excludes ISBN it is missing from the raw html as well

For any editor interested in altering this information it is blindingly obvious that the template is not filled in correctly, indeed in this case it will need to be split into a short and long citation. However from the point of view of a person reading the article the text that is there is far more useful that what was there before and I think it is a useful first step in sorting out the problem. I think you are wanting perfection without incremental editing (which is not the Wikipedia way). -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence but the raw html link was put in 11 July 2013 (so there has been no quick fix) I altered it on 18 March 2014 and a day later its been improved again. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I know what it produces; I looked at the article before I posted the diff. The date field is not accurate, as I explained above; as a result, without the ISBN or a publisher, the reader is unlikely to be able to find the correct source. The page number is present in the raw html, but is not present in the output. There's no point talking about perfection when basic accuracy and completeness is absent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have not persuaded you to see it my way or vice versa, we will have to agree to differ. So I will write no more here about it. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the misunderstanding on WP:MISS last night. I think what I thought "instructions" meant was different from what you were using it to mean--i.e. while (I think) you meant the way HectorMoffet's username was spelled, I thought you were talking about the stuff at the top of the page (under the "purpose of this list" section). Also, the reason the text was "untrue" was probably because I don't know very much about the reason HectorMoffet left, other than the diff I linked to. Jinkinson talk to me 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jinkinson, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps if you don't know what happened it's best to leave out the details and let someone who does know fill them in? The diff you linked to was a) not actually the account's last edit, and b) the subject of a dispute that ended with the account being blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I guess next time I should just go on WT:MISS and ask that they be added. Jinkinson talk to me 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent user block

Hello Nikkimaria. I saw that you recently blocked User:Jdogno5 for edit warring and I would like to ask you if you could keep an eye on them. They have been using reverting and edit summaries to state their case, rather than the article talk page to discuss their edit histories. As well, they have taken to the talk page of all the editors who reverted them, telling us they would request page protection as a way to deal with "the matter in a constructive way" and seeing if that is "reassuring" for them to get eventually get their way, and, after being blocked, stating that they are "being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion". It appears they do not have an understanding of Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly try... I don't know that I'll get further than anyone else, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Just watching to see if once the block is lifted, if they continue the same editing habits/style, is all that is asked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask which article did I edit that caused you to block me when you did?

Jdogno5 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jdogno5, you were blocked (and have now been re-blocked, I see) for edit-warring on Space Jam. I suggest you take this time to read the various policies and guidelines that have been provided on your talk page as well as the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Hi Nikkimaria,
I saw you name Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. So I will be very much obliged if you do a peer review of Mahatma Gandhi. Thanks. RRD13 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Language problem

We seem to have another language problem. I said I respect if an editor fills |nationality= in {{infobox person}}. So did kosboot, for a person who's place of death would let you infer a different nationality, in an article that I nominated for DYK with that infobox. I wanted respect for the decision, so logically had to revert what you did. You seem to have a different logic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep: I respect that editor's choice to include a template that shouldn't be there, but since it's there it should respect its own guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If the guidance says not to use nationality when two countries are mentioned in data of birth and death, the guidance is not good. Who says "template that shouldn't be there" if we are reminded again and again that it is decided case by case? See for example Imogen Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you say that the reversion of an addition is a removal, then "logically" the reversion of a removal is an addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that? - You didn't comment the guidance remark, and you didn't answer my question. - I would appreciate if you would extend your generosity - accepting a template, that you (!) think shouldn't be there, just a little bit and also accept a parameter that you think shouldn't be there. It would save the time of several people, - another way of showing respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Example. It would "save the time of several people" if you didn't ask questions to which you already know the answer, or if you took the advice you've been given. Another language problem, perhaps: just as "compromise" doesn't mean "capitulation", "respect" doesn't go only one way. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is not mine. Enjoy your Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, I am starting to have some real concerns about your attitude that a mere guideline, subject to IAR, is a policy, which it is not. Particularly when it appears you yourself created the guidelines in certain situations. Observing this from a vantage point of who is doing the mass editing here, you may be starting to have an obsession about this issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create the guidelines, nor do I think them policies. As to the rest, "your logic is not mine". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looked at current instructions. "Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace. Do not use a flag template." Here, the definition is "inferred." Where, as in the UK, things like being from Scotland, Ulster or Wales does matter deeply to some people, seems to me that the UK editors should be granted some deference on the matter. Seems that those who care, care deeply. I can also see this as an issue for Native Americans or First Nations people who might be US/Canadian citizens, but also view themselves as members of their tribal nation. Not a moral issue, just think that completing the parameter does no harm, and it IS, after all, part of the infobox parameters allowed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

• Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?

• WikiProject report: We have history

• Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic

• Featured content: Spot the bulldozer

• News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

• Traffic report: Into thin air

• Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

banning enforcement

You know, you could have deleted those pages and already had them restored, instead you seem to have some elusive point to prove by interfering with banning enforcement and waiting for someone else to get involved.  Care to explain?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of deleting some poor newbie's talk page for reasons they would not understand? Banning enforcement is meant to be applied using common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing these needless tags, Nikkimaria. I went to remove them and found you got to them first. No reason to delete an article talk page that hasn't even been used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Banning policy applies to all edits, good or bad.  If you want to discuss that, the place to go is WT:Banning policy.  Assuming that you re-create the page after the db-g5, your WP:IAR explanation doesn't hold water, because the only flaw you can find that makes the newbie a "poor newbie", is an entry on the deletion log for the page.  For my part, I've never looked at that log on my talk page and I'm confident that newbies won't either.  Aren't you claiming that an obscure entry on the newbie's talk-page deletion log is more important than supporting a policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• As the banning policy already makes clear, "obviously helpful" edits can and should be allowed to stand. For my part, I have my userpage (and so my talk page also) watchlisted (and encourage newbies to do the same, when I do training sessions), and can quite easily imagine myself as a newbie being quite confused to see a deletion with a "banned user" notation pop up on my watchlist. So since there is no clear benefit and the potential for harm, since it'd be a waste of time to delete the page and then just recreate it with the same content for the sake of process alone, since the policy already allows for the retention of obviously helpful edits, since user talk pages are not typically deleted unless their content (not creator) is somehow problematic (ie copyvio or defamatory)...nope, not seeing any reason to continue this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section in Camp Aliceville

Thanks for your attention to the article; I originally had the further reading section below the refs per the MOS, but the trouble is that there's a citation to a reference in it, and the reflist template doesn't pick it up if it's below the template transclusion, thus leaving an error message in the references section. Is there some fix for this? It's the only reason I put the sections in the order I did.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose my question would be whether we really need that quote and citation in the section at all - it's nice, but doesn't seem essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vanda Godsell page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please restore DYK time between updates to eight hours

Nikkimaria, I was very surprised to see what you had unilaterally changed the interval from eight hours to twelve at DYK. Normally, this is only done after discussion and consensus under WT:DYK. Having two sets a day is going to royally mess up April Fools Day on Tuesday—we have far too many hooks waiting for two sets, and probably for three—and you've changed over at a time of day that will take the bot over a week to reset to 00:00 UTC.

Please revert your change, and start a discussion on the DYK talk page. We have two queues and nearly two preps in reserve at the moment, which is why there are only five approved hooks—the review rate is steady, but the prep build rate has been a bit higher. It looks worse than the situation really is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: When you do reset the interval to eight hours, please also set the time of the next update to 16:00 UTC, when it should be (eight hours after the 08:00 UTC update). Otherwise, we'll still be off cycle with a 20:15 UTC update, and it will take several days for the bot to move at 15 minute increments to reset as above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I would be very uncomfortable with resetting to 8 hours right now, when over a third of posts to WT:DYK are late update warnings, when updates have repeatedly been several hours late, and when even after that change we still needed to reduce to 6 hooks per set to get updates through on time. We can certainly do it after the weekend in time for April Fool's. As I mentioned at WT:DYK before making the change, number of approved hooks is only one metric to consider when deciding on run rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, this is embarrassing. I completely misread the change as having happened just now, rather than a couple of days ago. My apologies for the error. This is old news—I retract my request for a reversion given that this has been the status quo for over 48 hours. Still, a change announcement at WT:DYK should always be done even in an emergency: this is something that affects the whole community. (I'm not sure what you mean about the reduction to six hooks per set; we've been there for a while.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right about the six/seven hooks thing, my mistake. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Works templates

I saw your edits to Charles Dickens and Edgar Allan Poe. I don't know if you are familiar with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_16#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates, but there was no consensus to remove these templates when over 20 editors convened to discuss the topic. This month at WP:BARD, they have decided to add templates for all the plays to William Shakespeare. I have attempted a compromise solution that has been used on other author pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been reverted (not by me) at Charles Dickens, where there 'was consensus to exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lee S Jablin appearing to be written as an advertisement

Hello Nikkimaria,

I'm Tordeforest, the writer of Lee S Jablin. On 17:04, 16 February 2014‎ you placed an advert box on the Lee S Jablin article. A day or two later Meatsgains made a huge number of edits to the article, and in his/her Talk page suggested that I give the article another look in order to remove the remaining peacock words. I want to be compliant and follow the rules of Wikipedia but after several careful reads I cannot find peacock or soap language. I think that maybe there are some misunderstandings remaining about the use of certain terms. For example, the terms 'building reimagination and best sustainable methods' are purely architectural terms and not puffery. 'Building reimagination' and 'Best sustainable methods' stand on their own as whole architectural terms with meanings all their own. 'Best' is not being used as a discreet adjective.

I'm writing to ask if the advert box can be removed. I have made a good faith effort to comply with the request to remove peacock words and and I am being sincere that I cannot find any remaining. I believe that Meatsgains has made many significant changes to the article and it no longer appears to be written as an advertisement.

Thank you, Tordeforest

Hi Tordeforest, it looks like Meatsgains has done some good work with that article. My only remaining concern is the "Interests" section - I would suggest combining the committees/councils into the Organizations section, and possibly removing the other material. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I made the change you suggested. Is this satisfactory? Tordeforest (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tordeforest, I've removed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. I've been confused by some of your recent edits, as I wasn't able to understand what your edit summaries meant. Per wp:edit summary, I find it helpful if you give reasons for a change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made. Such was the case here.

1. First, you deleted language from the infobox. Your edit summary stated: "(rm, fmt)". That did not explain to me the reason for your removal.

2. Next, you changed the format, here. With an edit summary stating "(fmt)". I did not understand from your edit summary the reason for your format change.

3. I restored the original state of the article, given the lack of explanation that I could understand, with my edit summary stating: ("Rev unexplained change from long-lasting format, and content del supported in text.)". You then again deleted the text and again made the formatting changes. You left an edit summary stating "(rm: parameters no longer supported)".

You didn't open tp discussion to explain further, so I'm coming here to understand your edits better.

Are you stating in your third edit summary that the long-standing format is no longer acceptable? And if so -- why is that?

And are you stating that the "influences" section of the infobox (with its text) that you deleted is not longer acceptable, and is required to be deleted? And if so -- where is that indicated?

BTW -- I see my difficulties with your edit summaries today mirror those raised by Obi-Wan Kenobi a few months back, when he wrote to you here:

== Use edit summaries, plz == Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And Thibbs raised similar points to you a few months ago here. Pointing to similar comments from still other editors.

Many thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, the influences/influenced parameters were removed from the template after an RFC last year. The listing of Star Tribune as a publisher was not correct - that's actually the title of the publication being cited. The use of line breaks to create lists in that manner is contrary to MOS:ACCESS - because there were only two items I opted to list them inline, or if you prefer you can use a list template, but the previous format was not acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikki. That's quite helpful. The RFC is especially interesting -- it seems to be a film problem, as described at the RFC. But prompts deletion in non-film articles, such as this one.

Perhaps you can understand why your simply writing "rm, format" as your edit summary is insufficient, as there may be a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why you made the change.

I see that many editors have made similar complaints to you on your talk page over the months and further in the past, including the above as well as Gerda Arendt and User:Koavf. I think you did great work here. But I must add my voice to the chorus. If you would go that extra step to provide further clarification in edit summaries such as this one, it would be much appreciated.

I know you've told one of the others in the past who suggested that you be clearer in your edit summary that: "I suppose we can give it a shot". But this sentiment seems not to have led to a helpful edit summary here. Especially when editing contentious articles I think it would be quite helpful if you were to assist other readers by providing better edit summaries. I echo here the comment by Obi above. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Give it a shot" refers to using only summaries listed at WP:ESL or the glossary, as opposed to my own custom summaries. I felt then, and continue to feel, that that change represented a step backwards. I do not see any realistic way in which multi-part edits such as those I tend to make can be adequately represented by a comprehensive, explanatory and specific summary of the type you seem to be requesting, nor do I see such an effort as worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(watching) What do you think of not making multi-part edits, but one thing at a time, - not for obvious errors but at least for changes that might be questioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes do that, but on the whole inefficiency is a poor solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that transparency is a good solution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme, Nikki's remark that "inefficiency is a poor solution" could support a view that we should not have edit summaries at all. Nikki -- I don't think you are evidencing a sensitivity to a half dozen editors who have independently approached you to say that your edit summaries left them confused or failed to explain why you made the edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Transparency can indeed be a good solution, but I've found that asking others to practice what you yourself or the majority do not rarely inspires a positive reaction. Epeefleche, as already mentioned, I did "evidence a sensitivity" by changing my means of edit-summary use. The further change you are requesting is neither feasible nor in practice typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are an excellent editor, on the whole. But I find your response very disappointing. Both because editors are encouraged to provide explanatory edit summaries (as wp:edit summary says, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it"), and because a number of editors have independently communicated to you with regard to a range of your edit summaries that they fell short. In addition, as you are an admin, I would expect you not only to heed the input from a number of members of the community concerned enough to raise the issue with you independently, but because wp:admin states that you "are expected to lead by example". I hope that you will take a moment to consider this, and re-consider your position.Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN requires that I justify my conduct as needed, and I have done so; I have also taken feedback into account in adopting ESL summaries. I do not expect, nor do I in practice typically see, the level of explanation in edit-sums that you seem to be requesting - instead, the typical edit summary "succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit", not the in-depth rationale. As I have explained, that is the most practical approach to the limitations of the medium. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just me who has found your edit summaries lacking in explanation that would allow understanding of your edit summary. I already quoted this, but let me bold the key part: As wp:edit summary says, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it". Writing "fmt" in what I pointed to for example (and the complaints of others were similar) did nothing to explain to me ... beyond what I could already see with my eyes without the edit summary ... an explanation that would allow me to understand the change. You wrote "what" you did; not "why". Answering "why", when it comes to you changing format, is what we are asking for. Otherwise, frankly, its the same as no edit summary at all, because I can see you are changing format. As another editor has stressed as well, when you do this with contentious articles, it is especially likely to cause consternation.Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no reason to expect that the simple housekeeping edits at issue here would be contentious, no reason why anyone who actually looked at the change effected by this edit would need further explanation of why it was helpful, nor any reason why "no longer supported" is an inadequate explanation for the removal of something no longer supported. Your repetition leads me to suspect you have not spent much time reviewing edits by others, which typically use a summary-only edit summary ("succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit") rather than a full rationale, for the reasons I have already explained. We shall have to agree to disagree on this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, on this issue of three-letter edit summaries, I have to say you do have a blind spot and it would be wise for you to realize that your personal view of what other people "need further explanation"- trust me, there is no one who knows the minutae of WP:THINGSINALLCAPS guidelines better than you; the rest of us are mere mortals. You make assumptions that everyone knows what you are doing,why you are doing it and what all the rules are you are applying. Unfortunately, you are often mistaken and you know your actions are often misinterpreted. Sure, these tiny abbreviations are "legal", but they are not always wise. Using two or three word summaries is better than two or three letter ones. I've gotten in two or three (short) SENTENCES sometimes. We even have pull-down menus you can add in your prefs that use whole words. "Succinct" is enforced by a limit on how many characters that fit into the edit summary box and so you can use the space. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to hit the high points of how to avoid aggravating folks, "fmt" really needs to be limited to things like when you screw up a bracket, omit a comma, or have a bad ref tag, things so minor, TOTALLY uncontroversial, and unrelated to content as to be wholly undisputable - & even then a lot of people still say, "added a comma" in their edit summaries. Something like "rv" or "rvv" with nothing more should be used with vandals and trolls, not content editors. In contrast, you use "rv, fmt" for very significant changes, and though technically they might be reversions and "formatting," they really need explanation - whether you think they are contentious or not (sometimes even changing the position of a comma CAN be contentious). Similarly, "re" is meaningless ... even summarizing with "more of the same," or "reply to previous" is clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are used, very much so, to direct and explain to other people. This is such a simple issue. If edit summaries have become too abbreviated to understand just make it easier for other people by extending the explanation. This isn't about the editor who creates the edit summary, its about those who read the summary and what they need to follow and understand, Nothing personal, just make it easy for others. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Nikki -- Given all of the editors who have written to you in this string, and in prior discussions referred to above, might you in the spirit of wp consensus editing take a different position? When you, as you did in what brought me here, delete from an infobox of a highly controversial Al Qaeda member the "influenced" section and all of its entries, an edit summary of "rm, fmt" is less than the community should be able to expect from an admin in terms of transparency. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What is it you think "the community" should reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What many editors have requested of you. As indicated above. That you leave edit summaries that better explain the reason for your edit. And that you be especially vigilant in this regard with controversial articles and edits that if unexplained can be expected to be controversial (your already-mentioned removal of the "influenced" section in the infobox of a particular notorious target-killed terrorist, with your edit summary reading: "rm fmt", comes to mind as an example). There are a number of individual examples above and in what is linked to above where editors asked the same thing of you. And you have above said you refuse to do what all of us have requested (you wrote: "We shall have to agree to disagree" -- I assume at that point it was clear to you what we are requesting, and what you were refusing to do), so I'm not sure where the confusion lies.Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It was clear what you were requesting, and it was equally clear that that is not a standard that the community requires. That is why I specifically asked: what should the community reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten, looking at my recent edit history? To me, it seems reasonable for the community to expect, for example, that when an experienced editor sees a change referencing template documentation, they might actually read that documentation before incorrectly claiming that there was "nothing wrong" with the original. This is where "we shall have to agree to disagree" comes from - your expectations are not mine, your expectations are not the community's, and your expectations as thus far expressed are not reasonable (and not even you meet them). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the community giving you feedback above, and in the linked-to conversations above. You criticize others, saying that you think an "experienced editor" should divine what you fail to state in your edit summary. Well, you have a whole slew of experienced editors here who didn't divine your thoughts. Which, of course, is besides the point -- you should write the edit summary not for yourself, or for experienced editors, but for all editors, who include newbies. And your suggestion that "fmt" means "fmt deprecated by RFC", and that those who can't divine it are surprisingly deficient, is not one as you can see that all of us who have come here agree with.

Another example would be this -- I just now had an article I created go to DYK. You have repeatedly now -- and again, as we have all complained in the past, without sufficient explanation as to why -- edit warred to seek to impose your preferred format, even though there was a prior-existing format, that was perfectly acceptable. Even though my comments to you in my edit summaries pointed to this. Your sphinx-like edit summaries failed to explain why your format changes were necessary, and why your format was preferable to the already-exiting one (it's not, on my screen, and it is not mandated). I assume on good faith that it is just a coincidence. But edit warring is annoying, and that is compounded when your edit summaries fail to explain why, rather than what, you are doing.

Fail to state? No, what I said was that an experienced editor—such as yourself, in the example you are now edit-warring over—should look at what is actually stated. That applies both to edit summaries and to discussions like this one. Your comments in both venues are incorrect. If you are unable to read and respond to the question I actually asked, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rachel Mahon

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference problems

Hi Nikki, I am a campus volunteer at University of Utah. I have some questions regarding the course University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World by Gunseli Berik. Some students are facing problems with downloading references in the sandbox as a pdf file. Specifically, when the students download the sandbox page as pdf, none of the references show up on the pdf file and for some students, some references show up and others are not there.

I tried to verify this and I face the same problem. Could you please help us with this problem??

thnx Diksha41 (talk)

Hi Diksha41, there are a few things that can cause that type of problem - do you have an example page that I can look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikki

You can view sandbox of codyG123 or Eva.varnju on the course page University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World. thnx Diksha41 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria,

The problem is quite widespread and a source of frustration for students. In addition to Cody and Eva, take a look at "Missing women in China" (only 6 out of 23 references show, apparently) and "Women's education in Saudi Arabia." "Gender inequality in India" author claims she lost sections (not sure if they are in the textbox or not (she says: I am missing 3 sections of text (about 2 hours of work) - on Mortality rates, variation in education quality by the sexes, and my own text on sex selected abortion. i have no Idea why. I was sure it was saved.") I suspect there are others that I have not yet heard from. Once you diagnose the problem could you post the solution in a way for all students to see? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...that's odd, it's not caused by a problem I've seen before. I've added a post here to see whether anyone else knows what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ragnar Tørnquist may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tørnquist studied art, history and Englis] at [[St Clare's International School|St Clare's]], [[Oxford]] from 1987 to 1989. From 1989 to 1990,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tess Broussard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Teens Wanna Know (2013)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone else nominated this, but didn't alert you.

[1]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_origins_of_political_order

Thank you for your helpful comments! I have adjusted the Reception section in the article. I am more concerned with the improvement of the article than the need for it to be DYK, so your help is much appreciated. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have now worked on the text before "reception", chasing copied texts, and improved refs. Do you think I should change quotes with fewer than 40 words to inline? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Since all were shorter than 40 characters, all blockquotes are now gone. A couple of quotes removed, and a few other things done.

Am I wrong to think this is trivia?

This diff. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not wrong, and it's already been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Slavery in Canada (New France) plagiarism?

Was reading these new additions to the article and found it odd that the use of native, indian and aboriginal were randomly used over just using one term. This leads me to believe there is some copyright concerns so i did a search and found that parts seem to come from globeandmail the source provided. Do you think the changes are enough or is it simply plagiarism with a few changes?

i.e

Now on Wiki = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were of high quality. Black slaves being more difficult to attain were double the cost of indigenous slaves. Both native and black slaves were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers."

vs

From the globeandmail = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were in prime condition. Blacks, being harder to get, were about double the cost of indigenous merchandise. Slaves of all kinds were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette, which had slaves in its print shop."

-- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Moxy, most of those additions were way too close to the source - I've reverted and left a note for the newbie in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking too- just wanted to make sure. -- Moxy (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Shammi better?

Looks like Ethically yours worked on Shammi (actress), check to see if your close paraphrasing concerns were addressed. The creator of the article keeps popping by and adding stuff that is not formatted terribly well, but I hope we can educate him/her a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not even close - I checked seven paragraphs and six had problems to varying degrees, to the point that it would probably be more productive to rewrite the entire article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the editor who was helping the newbie is traveling, maybe they will be able to help out later, think there is any problem letting this sit for a week or so? I think this is one of those situations where we have someone of limited English language ability who needs some hand-holding. The story of this actress is really quite interesting. Maybe I'll @Rosiestep: to see if she is interested in looking at it with an eye to rehab. Seeing as how I was just doing the review, I don't want to get myself bogged down, and I suspect that BlueMoonset will want a new reviewer to do the final approval now? BTW, do you run that duplication detector that's linked at the DYK review page on every source listed, (which I seem to have to run each link individually AND it gives me shitloads of false positives so I find it rather useless) or do you have a different tool? I've been trying MadmanBot (though not on this article) and am just trying to figure out if there is a way to streamline this process that I'm not aware of. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot of work to fix, so we'll see whether someone is up for that. I almost always check stuff manually, because automated tools give false positives and negatives and because it's easier to catch close paraphrasing (rather than verbatim copying) that way. I don't know that there is really any quick-and-easy way that's still effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

True that, it's probably why I bailed on CCI after cleaning up ItsLassieTime's socks and reviewing the Rlevse situation. Very time-consuming to do that level of review. Seems that on wiki, one can create content or you can review content, but doing both is quite a time sink if you also have RL commitments. I pinged @Ethically Yours: about this issue. It's really up to @Sortlips:, though - perhaps we can gently lead that user through the rewrite, I'd like more editors from India who can also create good content; the language and usage issues we so often see in articles from there are an ongoing concern and I'd like to see more editor development from that part of the world - is there a mentoring corps or anything for folks from India? Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, other than the massive failure that was the IEP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm traveling, too, but I might have some time for it on Saturday at Sarah's edithathon. I agree that a re-write is probably the best way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal! - Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 82nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rosalind Ellicott

Hi, thank you for editing this article. The unsourced part you took out was a bit left over from before I started working on it. I couldn't find a reference, and wasn't brave enough to remove it, being new to wiki. I appreciate your markup corrections and style changes. Diana Bassplayer (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, you're doing a great job so far, keep it up! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stadio della Roma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | image = [File:Stadio della Roma design.jpg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Zimmermann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * In 2001, Zimmermann was inducted into the CRN Industry Hall of Fame.<ref>[http://www.crn.com/sections/special/hof/hof01.asp?ArticleID=31279 CRN Industry Hall of Fame</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hissa Hilal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Hissa Hilal''' ({{lang-ar|حصة هلال}}) is a [audi Arabian [[poet]]. Previously published under the [[pseudonym]] '''Remia''' ({{lang-ar|ريميه}}),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading section heading

Good morning Nikkimaria. Please do not describe your edits as "mos" (WP:MOS), as you did here, when the edit clearly contains potentially controversial changes that are entirely unrelated to WP:MOS. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Demiurge. Please do not restore inaccuracies and formatting problems because you misunderstand the application of a portion of that edit. See MOS:IDENTITY, not to mention the various content policies that mandate neutral and accurate information. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand anything about your edit. Please discuss it on the talk page of the article concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe

You say (not to me): "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that?" - I surely believe that, as much as I believe that ALL books profit from a title page. I would like topic, time and location pointed out for all articles at a glance. - I was pointed to an article which consists practically only of an infobox, and find it helpful, ready to be easily translated to whatever language. When I log in, I get an Africa-related question. One thing Wikipedia can do for Africa is have information structured in a way that makes it accessible for readers with limited English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

All (published) books have title, date, publisher, location; not all article topics have that type of structured information. What infobox would you put on toilet paper orientation, for example? Or pigs in popular culture and other IPC articles? Or most lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am talking from a reader's point of view, not the general maker of such info. Looking at the toilet paper, I am oriented enough by the images as the only box content, the creators might think about something to add, and if won't be the first article in need to be translated to an African language. The Rite of Spring looks like an article about a painting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So in other words: no, you don't believe that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would reply if I hadn't exhausted my two comments per discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also a morally proper way to orient toilet paper, the other direction is only promoted by people who don't have cats or small children in their homes! (LOL!) My more substantive comment at the article discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary of Waltham

Hello. I've done a lot of work on this article. I would welcome your input if you have time. Is it good enough to remove the copy-editing banner? Thanks Diana Bassplayer (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, I've removed the tag, but there are two spots (marked with hidden comments) that need to be looked at yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing, it's very appreciated. Please can you tell me how to find the hidden comments so I can work on those bits? Thank you Diana Bassplayer (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, hidden comments are those enclosed in <!-- --> HTML markup - they show up in the editing window but not while reading the article itself. If you look at the sentences "It was a gift from the king..." and "However, within a few months..." in edit mode, you should see the comments; let me know if you have trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, thank you. I hope I've fixed those bits. Just one other thing if you have the time – the Brittany Portal was there before I started. Is it an appropriate link? Diana (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine, Diana - thanks again for your work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC spotchecks?

Nikki, not sure if you do all the spotchecks for all FACs but the Mucho Macho Man FAC is sort of sitting in limbo (Colonel Henry started a review but got sidetracked by real life) and given that you peeked at if for the peer review and have already checked the images, if there is any further magic you routinely do to sign off on these (or not), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usually the delegates don't ask for spotchecks where the nominator's had them at a recent FAC - your work was spotchecked on Oxbow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Also appreciate your nitpicks, though it helps my eyes if you can be as specific as possible so I can find stuff with a word search (as when you noted specific footnotes) and clarify the result you are seeking, not just pointing out a problem (Sometimes solution is obvious, but not always) Now if I can just get one or two more reviewers -- What does Ian need to see to promote? Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple more supports, most likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the contributions. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rushka Bergman

I am well aware of Rushka Bergman's history and works. Everything listed in her wikipedia page is true and accurate. It is extremely frustrating that you keep taking out valid elements in her page. Please refrain from editing the material. There is no need for you to continuously vandalize this page.

AMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Artmusicfashion, no one is vandalizing the page, and you can't ask people to refrain from editing - this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and when you disagree with someone you should discuss the matter. If you look at what my changes were, I reorganized the page, but the only content removed was the long list of cover models - this is too much detail for that article. However, you were the one to remove her filmography - can you explain why you did that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to remove that. It must have happened while we were going back and forth reposting and un-posting material. All of those cover stars are meant to be seen on the page and it would be much appreciated that you should leave it that way. Thank you. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, actually, they aren't "meant to be seen" - they might be appropriate for her webpage, but Wikipedia uses a summary style to maintain balance and avoid excessive detail (like a list of 50+ people). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, I agree that some of the names are excessive, but I do think that the people she continues to work with should be mentioned on her wikipedia. These are the facts regarding her career at this time. She continues to work with film directors Steven Speilberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. She continues to work with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Shia Lebeouf, Robert Pattinson, and Michael Fassbender. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP, do you have any reliable secondary sources to support your proposed content? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do. I will move forward with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

René Guénon

Hello,

Well, "backlog is 8 years" does not seem to be very serious: I could for instance add these tags on all wikipedia articles and wait for more than 8 years if someone change them… and putting them back as you do if anyone remove them. You've put those tags which do not seem to trigger much reaction, so I thought I was correct to remove them after 3 months. But OK, if you want to keep them, let's do it. I will change the article soon to make it shorter, if I find the time.

Best,

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You could, if you wanted to be pointy...but the idea is that the tags should be removed when someone fixes the problem, not just because they've been there for a few months - editing, not time, is the solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(tps)NM is correct, removing tags where there remains a problem helps nothing, better to just fix the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

please leave the G.V. Loewen page as is

Hello,

I am an editor of a Canadian literary review and a friend of the social philosopher Loewen. I spent a good deal of time assembling the texts used on this page and neither he nor I wish it to be altered. The idea that there are too many quotes or material from reviews is purely subjective and you have no right to impose your opinions - based on what? - on someone else's work in this way. Find something else to do with your time.Ypress20 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ypress20, I'm afraid that "neither he nor I wish it to be altered" isn't how this site works - this is not his personal webpage, and you and he "have no right" to dictate the content of the page. Wikipedia prefers a summary style that avoids excessive use of non-free content; these are site policies and guidelines rather than my opinions alone. I see someone has provided a welcome message on your talk page to help you learn about how Wikipedia works, so I suggest you read through the links there (and add the conflict of interest guideline as well). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue III, March 2014 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Summer is over Germany report: GLAM ship; Open GLAM hackathon; Science 2.0 conference; GLAM meetup Mexico report: New GLAM projects in Mexico and Reynosa's City Hall donation of historical photos Netherlands report: Education; Libraries; Museums; Maps, Earth Norway report: GLAM edit-a-thon at Preus museum Sweden report: Many ways to meet Wikipedia UK report: Art, Women, the Police and the build up to Wikimania USA report: Women's History Month Open Access report: Open Access at Wikimania; Open Access Button; Topic Pages Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping MMM

Hi Nikki, picked up another support on MMM. Maybe take a peek at the stuff you were concerned about and see if I addressed it all, or at least narrowed down the problem to something you can perhaps tweak directly. I think (I think!) that the "press release" question is the only thing I still need your input on. With ColonelHenry and Tigerboy both having RL stuff to deal with, I'm hoping everyone else can offer support soon. I'm going to ping Ian that we are getting close, just in case he has something happening. My current project is California Chrome, and that's an article I am going to have to monitor closely in real time, as he is a current Kentucky Derby contender. Kind of fun to be ahead of the curve on one of these for a change. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions

Since you are involved, you should be aware of Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

• News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Law

• Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz

• Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes

• Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems moving out of the sandbox

Hi Nikkimaria: my students are moving their articles to the main namespace this weekend. So far, I notice problems with two of them: Negev Bedouin Women and Commodification of the womb. Why are these articles not showing? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi BerikG, Negev Bedouin Women was moved twice - it's now at Negev Bedouin women. Commodification of the womb does appear under that title. What do you mean by "not showing"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant in the course page there is no live link (the article title does not show in blue). When I search Wikipedia by the article title, yes, the article is there. BerikG (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears there is a problem with the system not being able to follow page moves. I could get around this by removing and re-adding the article, so commodification of the womb is now correctly linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Several course articles have this problem, BTW. Now I am writing about two students' articles: 1) Gender inequality in India: This article is currently called Sexism in India. My student expanded the article substantially in her sandbox and is changing the title to Gender inequality in India. But when it comes to moving the article to the main namespace, the system is not moving it. 2) Missing women of China. My student created this article and revised it. But when she moved it to the main namespace yesterday, it was immediately taken down. She has had trouble with a Wikipedia user who argued against the title (Missing women is an established term and there is already a Missing women of Asia article!) The latest reason given is that it is not ready to move (I think it is ready) and this person does not know anything about the Wikipedia Education Program. I hope you can help move these articles from the sandboxes. Thanks. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The first one required that a redirect be deleted, so I have done that and moved the article. The second, though, is currently protected from being moved. The primary objection seems to be that the article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria for taking care of a couple of my requests. I do, however, have a hard time understanding how the "wifeless men" section of Missing women of China article reads like an essay. (I agree with your point about combining the "marginalized men" section with this section and avoiding general conclusions). Please provide one example (sentence) in the Wifeless men section that has an essay-like tone. Secondly, the insistence on Gender imbalance in China does not make sense from the point of view of the scholarship. There is an established scholarship on "Missing women." (Just do a Google Scholar search.) People will not search Wikipedia for the more accurate-sounding "Gender imbalance" article, they will look up "Missing women."BerikG (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My objection was primarily to the phrasing of the marginalized men section, not the wifeless men section. There is a simple solution to the issue of searching, though: create a redirect from whichever title is used to the other, that way no matter which term a searcher uses they will find the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and original research

At this discussion on AnI, I am asking about what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research and close paraphrasing. As an expert on copyright issues, it would be very helpful to have your input on the matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I agree with Cas: the thread would be better off closed than further argued. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The point has come up again at my editor review in the section from Faendalimas. It is quite critical to the criticisms being levied against me and I would very much appreciate your intervention in the discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, just a side comment as someone who has been lurking on this case and also as someone who has helped on a couple of big CCIs, I think that the folks who patrol copyvio tend to be "scarier" than the folks who argue for technical expertise - people get banned for major and repeated copyvio problems. So I think it appropriate for someone who regularly works in that area to help sort out the threads of that issue; close paraphrasing is something that is very easy to do and especially in an area where the technical language and necessary nuances are often rather subtle, and a paraphrase can change meaning entirely, as in science and law. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing reviewers from a course page

I would like to delete two users TINGLED1 and Rsl89 as reviewers from my course page, to allow others to sign up. (I already deleted them as members of the course --they have dropped out!) Please tell me how. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you would have been able to, so I've done this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

About taken down article from namespace to draft

Hi Nikkimaria, I am a student of Professor Berik. I notice from the above message that she has already told you about my problem. The topic of my article is "Missing women of China". I moved it to namespace last night and it was taken down this morning.

I was told that, “you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard their advice." But the problem is the two comments I've got was on March 29th and 31th. I made a lot of changes after that. According to the viewers, the first problem of my article is that the article looks like original research. I think maybe because I'm an international student, so some of my English expressions make the article looks like an essay. While after several revisions, I think it looks much better now than before. The second problem they said is the title. The viewer thinks the title should be "Gender imbalance in China" instead of "Missing women of China". But they are totally two different concepts. There is a "Missing women of Asia" in the Wikipedia already, so actually I am not quite understand why the title is a problem. I explained to the viewer, but it seems that we still have different ideas on this problem.

My previous taken down article is here now: Draft:Missing women of China.(I'm also confused that I cannot find the draft in my sandbox or my page.) Could you help me to look at what are the problems that do not match Wikipedia requirements? (This is what the viewer pointed out, but he didn't told me what are the specific problems. He just told me there was sufficient cause for it to be declined.) Thank you so much!! I'm really appreciate! Yangtana Li (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yangtana Li. I see a difference between Gender inequality in China and Gender imbalance in China; I'm not so sure I see one between the latter and Missing women in China. Can you explain?

In terms of the article content, there are a couple of issues I see on a quick look. The "marginalized men" section seems quite essay-like as written; I would suggest rewriting it as part of the "Wifeless men" section. Second, in the final section, avoid broad generalizations like "China’s society is changing" - instead, frame the content as reactions to the problematic gender ratio rather than as a conclusion to an essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria: Missing women is a term to describe a distorted sex ratio that males population is far more than females population due to some discriminations against women. It is a more academic phrase than gender imbalance. There are many journal articles on google scholar talking about missing women. While gender imbalance includes two sides: males are far more than females, or males are much less than females. The former is what missing women described. In China, females are less than males due to traditional discriminations against women. I'm not sure if I explain it clearly. (I'm sorry for what I said, "they are totally two different concepts" above, because I'm ashamed that I was confused about gender imbalance and gender inequality at that time. In Chinese, imbalance and inequality sometimes have similar meaning.)

Thank you for your helpful advices and revisions! I'll keep revising the draft, especially the sections you mentioned above. Thank you so much!! Yangtana Li (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with moving my sandbox to wiki article

Hi Nikkimaria, I seem to have made a mistake with my sandbox. I am a student in Dr. Berik's course. I have developed major edits to the Sexism in India article and have proposed a name change to Gender inequality in India. In doing so, I overwrote the title of my sandbox with Gender inequality in Utah. I am unable to move my sandbox to the Sexism in India article. I wonder if I should create a new account and start over. I can still access my article text/code. Any advice? Weetie2 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Weetie2, your sandbox is now at User:Weetie2sandbox, but the content is now in the newly moved Gender inequality in India article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed

Hi, I am attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status again and thought that you may be interested in giving it another look.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I out of line...

With the discussion at Talk:Robert of Chichester? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)